ED 415 626

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOTE

CONTRACT

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 306 106

Erickson, Ronald N.; Thurlow, Martha

State Special Education Outcomes, 1997: A Report on State

Activities during Educational Reform.

National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.;

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, Alexandria, VA.; Council of Chief State School

Officers, Washington, DC.

Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.

1997-00-00

50p.

H159C50004

National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of

Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road,

Minneapolis, MN 55455; phone: 612-626-1530; fax:

612-624-0879; World Wide Web: http: / /www.coled.umn.edu /NCEO

(document may be copied without charge, additional print

copies $15).

Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports - Research

(143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

Academic Standards; *Accountability; *Disabilities;

*Educational Assessment; Educational Testing; Elementary

Secondary Education; Evaluation Methods; Individualized

Education Programs; National Surveys; Outcomes of Education;

Special Education; *State Programs; *Student Evaluation;

*Student Participation; Tables (Data)

*Testing Accommodations (Disabilities)

This report presents the results of a survey of state

directors of special education from the 50 regular states and 6 unique

states, which examined several aspects of state-level educational

accountability systems and their inclusion of students with disabilities.

Specific sections address: students with disabilities and standards-based

reform; measuring participation in statewide testing; state activities in

developing alternate assessments; using assessment results for students with

disabilities; Individualized Educational Programs (IEP) and assessment;

measuring non-academic outcomes for students with disabilities; and current

issues and technical assistance needs. Findings of the survey indicate: (1)

most state special education divisions or units'report being very involved

with statewide educational reform efforts; (2) only 32 states report having

readily available information on the numbers of students with disabilities

who participate in any of their statewide assessments; (3) state directors

point to the altruistic motivations of parents and teachers and high stakes

for schools as the leading factors that inhibit greater participation of

students with disabilities in assessment programs; and (4) only six states

require IEPs to document the linkage between a student's individual goals and

objectives and the state's content or curriculum standards. An appendix

includes data on state directors' level of involvement in reform activities.

(CR)
NATIONAL

CENTER ON

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES

A Report on State

Activities Durinil

Educational Reform

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

In collaborat'on with:

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) 2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUC9if6NAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it:

Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.
1997 State

Special

Education

Outcomes

4,

NATIONAL

CENTER ON

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES

e"

".7

/7i

:

47.1i

't ii, , iii'I/

1? -::

1

i: I ..

4

il

In collaboration with:

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

A Report on State

Activities During

Educational Reform

3
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The Mission of the National Center on

Educational Outcomes

NCEO Core Staff

Robert H.,Bruininks

Judith L. Elliott

Ronald N. Erickson

Loren H. Faibisch

Michael L. Moore

Dorene L. Scott

Martha L. Thurlow,

associate director

James E. Ysseldyke,

director

NCEO IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THE

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Part of NCEO's mission is to

provide national leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their

development of policies and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems and data collection

efforts. NCEO's goals for students with disabilities are as follows:

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Goal 3:

Goal 4:

Students with disabilities will be a part of nationally-initiated

educational reforms.

Students with disabilities will be a part of each state's standardsbased educational reform efforts.

Students with disabilities will be included in national educational

data collection efforts.

Students with disabilities will be included in national and state

level reporting of educational outcomes, with results that can be

disaggregated.

Many NCEO activities promote these goals. In addition to its national survey,

NCEO is working with its organizational partners to provide needed information

and support to state education agencies seeking to include students with disabilities in their efforts to provide better educational outcomes to all students.

The Center is supported through a cooperative agreement (#H159C50004) with

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Opinions or points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent

those of the Department or the Offices within it.

Additional copies of this report may be ordered for $15.00. Please write or call:

Publications Office

NCEO

350 Elliott Hall

75 E. River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612/624-8561 Fax: 612/624-0879

Web Site: http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo

4

November, 1997
Acknowledgments iii Acknowledgments

MANY INDIVIDUALS PROVIDED INPUT ON BOTH THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF THIS

1997 Special Education Outcomes document. NCEO especially expresses its

appreciation to the state directors of special education who volunteered a portion

of their valuable time in addressing the survey questions. In addition, special

thanks go to:

Lou Danielson and David Malouf, of the Office of Special Education

Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special

Education;

Abby Deschapelles, of the South Atlantic Regional Resource Center; and

Michael Moore, publications director for the National Center on Educational

Outcomes.

State Special Education Outcomes 1997 was prepared by Ron Erickson and Martha

Thurlow, with support from research assistants Sarah Gutman, Lester Bentley,

John Bielinski, and Ellen Teelucksing.
iv NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA KENTUCKY NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN

Bill East Mike Armstrong Lowell Harris Juanita Pawlisch

ALASKA LOUISIANA NORTH DAKOTA WYOMING

Myra Howe Virginia Beridon Brenda Oas Patti Muhlenkamp

ARIZONA MAINE OHIO

Kathryn Lund David Stockford John Herner

AMERICAN SAMOA

ARKANSAS MARYLAND OKLAHOMA Jane French

Diane Sydoriak Carol Ann Baglin Darla Griffin

BUREAU OF INDIAN

CALIFORNIA MASSACHUSETTS OREGON AFFAIRS

Leo Sandoval Marcia Mittnacht Steve Johnson Ken Whitehorn

COLORADO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF

Myron Swize Richard Baldwin William Penn COLUMBIA

Jeff Meyers

CONNECTICUT MINNESOTA RHODE ISLAND

Leslie Averna. Wayne Erickson Robert Pryhoda GUAM

Vince Leon Guerrero

DELAWARE MISSISSIPPI SOUTH CAROLINA

Martha Brooks Carolyn Black Ora Spann MARIANA ISLANDS

Barbara Rudy

FLORIDA MISSOURI SOUTH DAKOTA

Shan Goff Melodie Friedebach Deborah Barnett MARSHALL ISLANDS

Kanchi Hosia

GEORGIA MONTANA TENNESSEE

Paulette Bragg Robert Runkel Joe Fisher MICRONESIA

Makir Keller

HAWAII NEBRASKA TEXAS

Robert Campbell Gary Sherman Jill Gray PALAU

Jemmy Blelai

IDAHO NEVADA UTAH

Nolene Weaver Gloria Dopf Steve Kukic PUERTO RICO

Maria Teresa Morales

ILLINOIS NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT

Gail Lieberman Nate Norris Dennis Kane U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Elsia Monsanto

INDIANA NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA

Robert Marra Barbara Gantwerk Doug Cox These were the state

directors of special educaIOWA NEW MEXICO WASHINGTON tion in March 1997 when

Jeananne Hagen Diego Gallegos Douglas Gill the survey was conducted.

KANSAS NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA

Mike Remus Tom Neveldine Michael Valentine
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

THE 1997 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS IS THE SIXTH IN A

series of surveys that have been conducted by NCEO since 1991. Among its

findings are the following:

In general, states are placing high levels of emphasis on the foundational

stages of statewide educational reform, and most state special education

divisions or units report being very involved with these efforts.

Only 32 regular and unique states report having readily available information

on the numbers of students with disabilities who participate in any of their

statewide assessments. Even among those that report having such data, some

states were unable to provide them.

State directors point to the altruistic motivations of parents and teachers and

high stakes for schools as the leading factors that inhibit greater participation

of students with disabilities in assessment programs.

Out of the 20 states that indicate some type of activity underway for alternate

assessments, only two states are implementing such assessments at the present

time. All others are at various stages of development, from initial discussions

to more formal planning efforts.

Data gathered on students with disabilities are not publicly reported in most

states, but are used for internal review.

Very few states have any formal process by which assessment results for students with disabilities are used for curricular or instructional decision-making

at the state or local level.

Only six states currently require Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs)

to document the linkage between a student's individual goals and objectives,

and the state's content or curriculum standards.

Most states do not measure non-academic outcomes for students with

disabilities.

These findings highlight the current status of students with disabilities within the

context of educational reform. They also reinforce the need to continue to survey

state directors of special education about the status of state special education

outcomes.
vi NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table of Contents

State Directors of Special Education iv

Executive Summary

Overview of 1997 Survey 1

The Context of Reform 2

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving

Special Education Services for the 1995-96 School Year 2

Figure 1. Proportion of State Special Education Populations to Overall Student

Populations (Ages 6 to 17) Who Received Special Education Services in

1995-96 School Year 4

Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform 5

Figure 2. Establishing or Revising Educational Outcomes, Standards, or

Curriculor Frameworks 6

Figure 3. Aligning Assessments to Content or Curricular Standards 7

Figure 4. Developing or Revising Participation and Exemption Policies

for Statewide Assessments 8

Figure 5. Developing or Revising Testing Accommodation Policies 9

Figure 6. Determining Statewide Reporting Procedures 10

Figure 7. Establishing Rewards or Sanctions for Schools and Districts 11

Figure 8. Providing Staff Development Training to Promote Implementation

of New Standards and Assessments 12

Figure 9. Reforming Preservice Educational Programs in Teacher Preparation

Institutions 13

Figure 10. Engaging Parents and Communities in Reform Efforts Through

Public Outreach Activities 14

Figure 11. State Special Education Involvement in Reform 15

Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities in

Statewide Testing 16

Table 2. Participation Data Available 16

Figure 12. State Special Education Departments that Report Collecting or

Receiving Data on Number of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing 18

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular

Statewide Assessments 19

Table 4. Factors Inhibiting Participation of Students with Disabilities in

Statewide Assessments 24

State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments 25

Figure 13. Number of States at Various Stages of Implementing

Alternate Assessments 25

Table 5. States' Progress in Implementing Alternate Assessments 26

8
Table of Contents vii

Using Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities 27

Figure 14. State Directors' Reasons for Disaggregated Performance Data 27

Figure 15. State Directors' Reasons for Not Disaggregating Performance Data 28

Figure 16. How Disaggregated Scores of Performance Data are Reported 29

Table 6. Actual and Planned Uses of Statewide Assessment Data on Students

with Disabilities 30

Individualized Educational Programs and Assessments 31

Table 7. IEP Alignment with Standards 31

Measuring Non-Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities 32

Table 8. Data Available on Non-Academic Outcomes for Students

with Disabilities 33

Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs 34

Figure 17. Current Issues State Directors are Facing 34

Figure 18. Technical Assistance Needs for State Directors 35

Appendix: State Directors' Level of Involvement in Reform Activities 36

Table 9. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Establishing or Revising

Educational Outcomes, Standards, or Curricular Frameworks 36

Table 10. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Aligning Assessments to

Content or Curricular Standards 37

Table 11. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Developing or Revising

Participation and Exemption Policies for Statewide Assessments 37

Table 12. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Developing or Revising

Testing Accommodation Policies 38

Table 13. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Determining Statewide

Reporting Procedures 38

Table 14. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Establishing Rewards or

Sanctions for Schools and Districts 39

Table 15. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Providing Staff Development

Training to Promote Implementation of New Standards and Assessments 39

Table 16. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Reforming Preservice

Educational Programs in Teacher Preparation Institutions 40

Table 17. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Engaging Parents and

Communities in Reform Efforts Through Public Outreach Activities 40
Overview

Overview of 1997 Survey

SINCE 1991, WHEN NCEO CONDUCTED ITS FIRST NATIONAL SURVEY OF STATE SPECIAL

education directors, efforts to reform our nation's schools have proliferated at

both the state and national levels. Almost every state has been engaged in some

type of reform since that time, with efforts often focused on the establishment of

high standards and assessment systems aligned with those standards. Federal

efforts have included the establishment of national education goals, the work of

various standard-setting groups in producing world-class standards in numerous

content areas, and passage of several pieces of education legislation, including

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the Improving America's Schools Act, the Schoolto-Work Opportunities Act and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Provisions within each of these laws stimulate and support

a variety of state-level activities that promote educational opportunities for all

students.

Central to many of these state and national efforts is the concept of educational

accountability, a premise that our nation's schools must take more responsibility

for the outcomes realized by our students. NCEO has joined many other state

and federal organizations in arguing that such accountability is realized only when

all children, including students with disabilities, are considered in the planning,

development, and implementation of such systems.

The 1997 Special Education Outcomes survey examined several aspects of statelevel educational accountability systems, and their inclusion of students with

disabilities. Results are presented in seven sections:

Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide

Testing

State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments Ten Unique States

Using Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities American Samoa Individualized Educational Programs and Assessments Bureau of Indian Affairs Measuring Non-Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

(BIA) Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs

District of Columbia

Those surveyed for the 1997 report were the state special education directors in

all 50 regular states and the 10 unique states that abide by the provisions of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Responses were gathered

through mailed or faxed surveys, and in some cases, from telephone interviews. In

some instances, state special education directors asked other state officials to assist

in answering the survey questions. Responses were obtained from the state special

education offices of all 50 regular states and from six unique states, representing

an overall response rate of 93 percent.

/0

Guam

Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S.Virgin Islands
Table 1 displays the

number of students with

disabilities, ages 6 to 17

years, being served under

the provisions of IDEA

during the 1995-96

school year (see third

column). It also shows in

the last column what

proportions these totals

represent when compared to the total estimated resident

population of students

6-17 years (see second

column).

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The Context of Reform

Table I. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1995-96 School Year

Regular States

Estimated Resident

Population for Children

(Ages 6-17)'

Number of Children

Served Under IDEA

(Ages 6-17)2

Percentage of All

Children Served Under

IDEA (Ages 6-17)2

Alabama 718,777 84,440 11.75%

Alaska 124,659 14,958 12.00%

Arizona 766,094 65,263 8.52%

Arkansas 440,607 44,024 9.99%

California 5,431,442 489,168 9.01%

Colorado 656,154 59,786 9.11%

Connecticut 520,936 65,412 12.56%

Delaware 116,489 13,025 11.18%

Florida 2,199,439 271,078 12.32%

Georgia 1,259,349 117,164 9.30%

Hawaii 194,692 14,177 7.28%

Idaho 239,878 19,989 8.33%

Illinois 2,022,193 220,648 10.91%

Indiana 996,104 115,629 11.61%

Iowa 501,367 57,148 11.40%

Kansas 471,483 45,404 9.63%

Kentucky 658,209 64,997 9.87%

Louisiana 835,121 76,743 9.19%

Maine 213,116 26,956 12.65%

Maryland 825,680 87,489 10.60%

Massachusetts 930,111 135,126 14.53%

Michigan 1,687,257 161,511 9.57%

Minnesota 854,452 83,697 9.80%

Mississippi 511,505 57,399 11.22%

Missouri 934,056 107,763 11.54%

Montana 166,468 15,834 9.51%

Nebraska 304,423 34,460 11.32%

Nevada 254,991 24,146 9.47%

New Hampshire 200,877 21,827 10.87%

New Jersey 1,266,428 171,551 13.55%

New Mexico 333,381 41,256 12.38%

New York 2,900,534 323,144 11.14%

11
The Context of Reform

Table I . Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special

Education Services for the 1995-96 School Year (continued)

Regular States

Estimated Resident

Population for Children

(Ages 6-17)'

Number of Children

Served Under IDEA

(Ages 6-17)2

Percentage of All

Children Served Under

IDEA (Ages 6-17)3

North Carolina 1,178,138 125,794 10.68%

North Dakota 119,402 10,567 8.85%

Ohio 1,924,275 197,241 10.25%

Oklahoma 599,012 63,161 10.54%

Oregon 542,381 56,338 10.39%

Pennsylvania 1,955,934 179,234 9.16%

Rhode Island 155,491 21,461 13.80%

South Carolina 625,977 73,090 11.68%

South Dakota 142,818 12,703 8.89%

Tennessee 869,728 109,981 12.65%

Texas 3,510,297 386,842 11.02%

Utah 454,117 45,686 10.06%

Vermont 101,168 9,518 9.41%

Virginia 1,053,073 122,388 11.62%

Washington 950,332 89,825 9.45%

West Virginia 293,458 39,277 13.38%

Wisconsin 933,832 87,990 9.42%

Wyoming 96,895 10,490 10.83%

Totals 15,506,328 1,641,586 10.59%

' Data taken from Table AF4 published in Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of

Education, 1997).

2 Data taken from Table AA I published in Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of

Education, 1997).

Data taken from Table AAIO published in Nineteenth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of

Education, 1997).

BEST COPY AMIABLE

12
State special education

populations differ in their

proportion to the overall

student populations

because of a variety of

factors, including differences among states in

their eligibility requirements for receiving

special education services. Figure 1 illustrates

the variance found

among the 50 regular

states in terms of five

percentage ranges.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure I. Proportion of State Special Education Populations to Overall Student

Populations (Ages 6 to 17) Who Received Special Education Services in 1995-96

School Year

*Hawaii's percentage is under 8 percent.

MD

MA

Percentage of Students Identified as Special Education

(Ages 6 to 17)

ri8.00 - 8.99% 11.00-11.99%

9.00-9.99% 12.00% and above

El 10.00-10.99%

Estimates are based on the 1995-96 school year and are taken from Table AA10 from the Nineteenth Annual Report to

Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

13
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Students with Disabilities and

Standards-Based Reform

CURRENT REFORM EFFORTS EMPHASIZE ACCOUNTABILITY. BUT "ACCOUNTABILITY" IS AN

ambiguous term that is used in many ways; it limits our ability to describe the

unique systems that states have employed to ensure educational accountability for

their students, schools, and school systems. To better examine current reform

efforts, the 1997 survey looked at nine discrete activities, recognizing that the

activities rarely occur in linear fashion, but more often occur simultaneously,

driven by a variety of policy directives and political forces. These forces result in

different levels of emphasis being placed on different types of activities.

State special education directors rated the emphasis being placed on each of nine

identified areas of effort by their state agency (see below), using a five-point scale

from "no emphasis" to "high emphasis." These ratings indicate that states are

very focused on some of the foundational activities for building educational

accountability systems. Over two-thirds of the state directors indicated that high

emphasis is placed on the establishment or revision of content standards or curricular frameworks, with similar numbers of states placing high emphasis on

aligning these standards and frameworks with statewide assessments. On the other

hand, establishing rewards or sanctions for schools and districts is receiving less

overall attention as these accountability systems continue in their development.

Only 13 state directors indicated that high emphasis is placed on this aspect of

accountability. Figures 2 through 10 illustrate the emphasis states are placing on

the nine areas of reform activities.

Areas of Reform Activities

Establishing or revising educational outcomes, standards, or curricular frameworks

Aligning assessments to content or curricular standards

Developing or revising participation and exemption policies for statewide

assessments

Developing or revising testing accommodation policies

Determining statewide reporting procedures

Establishing rewards or sanctions for schools and districts

Providing staff development training to promote implementation of new standards

and assessments

Reforming preservice educational programs.in teacher preparation institutions

Engaging parents and communities in reform efforts through public outreach

activities

14

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
'

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 2. Establishing or Revising Educational Outcomes, Standards, or Curricular

Frameworks

EST COPY AVAILABLE

IA

VT

CT

NJ DE

MD

RI NH

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

O I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

O 2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

ID4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

*'No Response

15

MA
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Figure 3.Aligning Assessments to Content or Curricular Standards

ID

MT

VT

NH

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

O I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

O 2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

1 6

MA

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 4. Developing or Revising Participation and Exemption Policies for

Statewide Assessments

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

El

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

0 I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

17
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Figure 5. Developing or Revising Testing Accommodation Policies

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

0 I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

BEST COPY MAILABLE
I0 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 6. Determining Statewide Reporting Procedures

LI

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

FqDistrict of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

OI) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 19
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Figure 7. Establishing Rewards or Sanctions for Schools and Districts

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

r7Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

FAMicronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

0 I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

0 2) Little Emphasis

Ulf

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

20

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 8. Providing Staff Development Training to Promote Implementation of

New Standards and Assessments

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Ell Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

21
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

Figure 9. Reforming Preservice Educational Programs in Teacher Preparation

Institutions

LI

El

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placedon Reform Activity

0 I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response fp)EST CU .1 A1 M11.6

"

22
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 10. Engaging Parents and Communities in Reform Efforts Through Public

Outreach Activities

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Unique States

American Samoa

BIA

Mariana Islands

VA

District of Columbia

Micronesia

Guam

Palau

Puerto Rico

Marshall Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands

Degree of Emphasis Being Placed on Reform Activity

0 I) No Emphasis (Activity either concluded or not initiated)

2) Little Emphasis

3) Some Emphasis

4) Moderately High Emphasis

5) High Emphasis

* No Response

23
Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform

State directors' appraisals of how involved their offices or units have been with

these reform activities varied. Anecdotal information received by NCEO in the

past suggested that special education involvement was often overlooked in state

reform activities. State directors rated their offices' level of involvement in each of

the identified reform activities on a five-point scale ranging from "not involved"

to "closely involved." See Tables 9 through 17 in the Appendix.

Generally, the more emphasis placed on a reform activity, the greater the involvement of special education in that activity. Still, there are some interesting exceptions to this general finding. Five state directors reported no involvement in

activities to align assessments to content or curricular standards, even though their

state agencies were placing high emphasis on this. In contrast, 29 directors reported being closely involved in activities related to developing or revising policies

on participation in statewide assessments.

Figure 11 shows the level of state directors' involvement in reform from the high

emphasis (Level 5) states that were profiled in Figures 2 through 10. For example,

in the reform activity of Establishing or Revising Standards, though 37 states

rated this as a high emphasis activity, only 12 states reported very close involvement of their state directors. In contrast, of the 27 states that rated Developing or

Revising Accommodation Policies as a high emphasis activity, 22 states reported

very close involvement of their state directors. (Data on state directors' involvement in Figure 11 are derived from Tables 9 through 17 in the Appendix.)

Figure I I. State Special Education Involvement in Reform

35 4 30

'4, 25

rn I 20 E

In

Establishing or Aligning Developing or Developing or Determining Establishing Providing Staff Reforming Engaging Parents

Revising Assessments to Revising Revising Reporting Rewards or Development Preservice & Communities in Standards Standards Participation Accommodation Procedures Sanctions Training Training Programs Reform Efforts Policies Policies Not involved Little involvement L9 Some involvement IN Moderately close involvement Very close involvement

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 24
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Measuring the Participation of

Students with Disabilities in

Statewide Testing

SINCE 1991, NCEO HAS ASKED STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS ABOUT THE

extent to which students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment

programs. Early results revealed great variability among states in the rate at which

students with disabilities participated in testing, as well as an overall lack of

reliable information on the extent of their participation.

Participation in testing programs can be reported in a variety of ways, some of

which prove to be more useful than others in describing the extent of student

participation. In earlier surveys, a relatively small number of states was able to

report any of the following data on one or more of their statewide assessments:

The number of students with disabilities tested.

The number of students with disabilities excluded or exempted from testing.

The percentage of test takers who were students with disabilities.

The percentage of all special education students at the grade or age level

tested who were actually assessed.

NCEO promotes the last type of data as the most relevant and useful for policymakers when evaluating the inclusiveness of assessment programs. See Table 2 for

information on available participation data in each state.

Table 2. Participation Data Available

Regular States

Measure of Participation Rate Collected or Received by Special Education Unit

Number of

Students with

Disabilities Tested

Number of

Students with

Disabilities

Exempted or Excluded

Percent of All Test

Takers Who Were

Students with

Disabilities

Percent of All

Students with

Disabilities at the

Grade(s) Being

Tested Who Were

Actually Assessed

Do Not Collect or

Receive Any of These Data Alabama III 1111 Alaska U

Arizona Arkansas U

California . U . .

Colorado MI

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida / II

Georgia U

Hawaii ili

Idaho IN

25
Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities

Table 2. Participation Data Available (continued)

Regular States

Measure of Participation Rate Collected or Received by Special Education Unit

Number of

Students with

Disabilities Tested

Number of

Students with Disabilities Exempted or Excluded

Percent of All Test

Takers Who Were

Students with

Disabilities

Percent of All

Students with

Disabilities at the

Grade(s) Being

Tested Who Were

Actually Assessed

Do Not Collect or

Receive Any of These

Data

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland U N . IN Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska MI Nevada New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio NI

Oklahoma a

Oregon

Pennsylvania Rhode Island El

South Carolina MI .

South Dakota Tennessee Texas IN

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia III III

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Unique States

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs * Mariana Islands IN

District of Columbia li

Micronesia

Guam ii Marshall Islands *

Palau Puerto Rico * U.S. Virgin Islands * Totals 32 25 24 24 22

* No response

26

Twenty-two of fifty-six

state directors reported

that their offices do not

currently collect or

receive information on

the number or rate at

which students with

disabilities participate in

any of their statewide

assessments. Of the 34

respondents who reported that they do

collect or receive such

information, the specific

measure most commonly

collected was the number

of students with disabilities who participated in

testing.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

New provisions within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 call for the public reporting of the numbers of students with disabilities participating in regular statewide assessments by July, 1998. Figure 12

highlights those 32 regular and unique states that indicated such data were

available.

State directors also were asked to provide the actual frequency data for the most

recent assessment administration cycles. These data are provided in Table 3. In

more than half the states, frequency data were either unavailable to the state

directors, or represented a different measure of assessment participation (e.g., the

percentage of all test takers who were students with disabilities).

Figure 12. State Special Education Departments that Report Collecting or

Receiving Data on Number of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing

0

BEST COPY MAILABLE

MD

Unique States

American Samoa n Guam

BIA Palau 111 Mariana Islands

111 District of Columbia

111 Micronesia

Puerto Rico Marshall Islands U.S. Virgin Islands

State Special Education Division or Unit collects or receives data

on number of students with disabilities in at least one statewide assessment

State Special Education Division or Unit does not collect or receive data

on number of students with disabilities in any statewide assessment

No Response

27
Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide

Assessments

State Name of Assessment or Testing Date Grade Levels

Tested

Number of Students

with Disabilities

Tested

Alabama Exit Exam II

Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition 3 through 11

Arizona In process of being collected

California did not have a statewide testing program in place during the 1997 survey California period. Local districts, however, did provide data to the state special education unit on the

number of students with disabilities being tested in local assessments.

Connecticut Connecticut Mastery Test 4, 6, and 8 14,125

Connecticut Academic Performance Test 10 2,422

Delaware 1996 Writing Assessment 3 and 5 29, 386

1996 Writing Assessment 8 and 10 11,790

Florida High School Competency Test: October 1996 11 6,445

1997 Florida Writes! 4 8,214

1997 Florida Writes! 8 7,066

1997 Florida Writes! 10 3,828

Hawaii Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition

3 1,155 (Reading)

Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition

6 1,473 (Reading)

Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition

8 1,222 (Reading)

Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition

10 764 (Reading)

Illinois Spring 1997 Reading, Writing, Mathematics 3, 6, 8, 10 ** Spring 1997 Science and Social Science 4, 7, 11 *4` Kansas 1996 Kansas State Assessment: Reading 3 2,589

1996 Kansas State Assessment Math 4 2,843

1996 Kansas State Assessment Writing 5 1,843

1996 Kansas State Assessment Reading 7 2,209

1996 Kansas State Assessment: Math 7 2,284

1996 Kansas State Assessment Writing 8 1,294

1996 Kansas State Assessment Reading 10 1,375

1996 Kansas State Assessment: Math 10 1,468

1996 Kansas State Assessment Writing 10 698

* Other data provided (e.g., percentage of all test takers receiving special education)

** No data available or provided

Although 32 states

indicated they collected

or received data on the

number of students with

disabilities in statewide

testing, only 15 provided

the numbers when

requested to do so.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

28
20 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide

Assessments (continued)

State Name of Assessment or Testing Date Grade Levels

Tested

Number of Students

with Disabilities

Tested

Kentucky 1995-96 KIRIS Assessments 4 and 5

8

II and 12

Louisiana Spring 1997 LEAP Language Arts Test 3 3,778

Spring 1997 LEAP Language Arts Test 5 4,279

Spring 1997 LEAP Language Arts Test 7 3,789

Spring 1997 LEAP Language Arts Test 10 1,715

Spring 1997 LEAP Mathematics Test 3 3,798

Spring 1997 LEAP Mathematics Test 5 4,282

Spring 1997 LEAP Mathematics Test 7 3,777

Spring 1997 LEAP Mathematics Test 10 1,713

Spring 1997 LEAP Written Composition Test 10 1,644

Spring 1997 LEAP Science Test 11 1,238

Spring 1997 LEAP Social Studies Test 11 1,232

Maine January 1996 4

April 1996 11 * October 1996 8

Maryland 1996 MSPAP 3 7,064

1996 MSPAP 5 8,249

1996 MSPAP 8 7,377

1996 MFT 11 5,428

Massachusetts May 1997 3, 4, 8, and 10

Michigan January 1997 MEAP Math and Reading Tests 4, 7

January 1997 MEAP Writing and Science Tests 5, 8

January 1997 MEAP High School Proficiency

Test I I ** * Other data provided (e.g., percentage of all test takers receiving special education)

** No data available or provided

BEST COPY MAILABLE 2 9
Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide

Assessments (continued)

State Name of Assessment or Testing Date Grade Levels

Tested

Number of Students

with Disabilities

Tested

Missouri Missouri Mastery & Achievement Tests 4 5,509

Missouri Mastery & Achievement Tests 8 4,583

Missouri Mastery & Achievement Tests 10 2,660

Missouri Assessment Program - Mathematics 4 6,814

Missouri Assessment Program - Mathematics 8 4,256

Missouri Assessment Program - Mathematics 10 2,345

Nevada Fall 1997 Terra Nova 4, 8, 10

1997 Nevada High School Proficiency Exam 11 Data to be available in

1998

1997 Writing Assessment 8 and 11

New Jersey High School Proficiency Exams: October 1995

1 1 Early Warning Tests: March 1996 8

High School Proficiency Exams (Retest): April 1996 11 New York May 1996 PEP: Reading 3 23,389

May 1996 PEP: Math 3 23,662

May 1996 PEP: Writing 5 24,193

May 1996 PEP: Reading 6 24,899

May 1996 PEP: Math 6 24,728

May 1996 PET: Science 4 25,243

May 1996 PET: Social Studies 6 24,136

May 1996 PET: Social Studies 8 20,513

May 1996 PCT: Reading 8 21,994

May 1996 PCT: Writing 8 20,471

May 1996 PCT: Reading 9 889

May 1996 PCT: Math 9 1,056

May 1996 RCT: Reading 9, 10, II, and 12 15,460

May 1996 RCT: Math 9, 10, II, and 12 22,735

May 1996 RCT: Writing 9, 10, II, and 12 10,681

May 1996 RCT: Science 9, 10, 11, and 12 19,891

May 1996 RCT: Global Studies 9, 10, I I, and 12 15,072

May 1996 RCT: U.S. History and

Government 9, 10, I I, and 12 9,242 * Other data provided (e.g., percentage of all test takers-receiving special education)

** No data available or provided

BEST COP' A041

30
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide

Assessments (continued)

State Name of Assessment or Testing Date Grade Levels

Tested

Number of Students

with Disabilities

Tested

North Carolina May 1996 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8

North Dakota March 1997 California Test of Basic Skills 3, 6, 8, and II 2,143

Ohio 1995-96

September 1995 and March 1996

4 and 6

9, 10, 1 I and 12

44, Oregon 1995-96 OSAP Reading/Literature MC

1995-96 OSAP Reading/Literature MC

1995-96 OSAP Reading/Literature MC

1995-96 OSAP Reading/Literature MC

1995-96 OSAP Mathematics MC

1995-96 OSAP Mathematics MC

1995-96 OSAP Mathematics MC

1995-96 OSAP Mathematics MC

358

10

358

10

1,961

2,428

1,850

1,060

2,406

2,603

1,907

1,086

Rhode Island Math: Spring 1996

Writing: Spring 1996

Health: Spring 1996

Performance Assessment

4

4, 8 and 10

4

unspecified

1,325

4=ic

South Carolina BSAP: April 1996

BSAP: April 1996

BSAP: April 1996

BSAP: April 1996

BSAP: April 1996

BSAP: April 1996

Metropolitan Achievement Test:

March - May 1996

Metropolitan Achievement Test

March - May 1996

Metropolitan Achievement Test

March - May 1996

Metropolitan Achievement Test:

March - May 1996

Metropolitan Achievement Test

March - May 1996

368

10

I I 124

57

9

11

5,284

3,643

3,570

1,882

785

394

4,243

3,703

3,091

Z849

880 * Other data provided (e.g., percentage of all test takers receiving special education)

** No data available or provided

BE ST COPY AVAILABLE

31
Measuring the Participation of Students with Disabilities

Table 3. Numbers of Students with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide

Assessments (continued)

State Name of Assessment or Testing Date Grade Levels

Tested

Number of Students

with Disabilities

Tested

Tennessee March 1996 2 through 8

Texas Spring 1995 TAAS: Reading

Spring 1995 TAAS: Math

Spring 1995 TAAS: Writing

3 through 10

3 through 10

3 through 10

94,002

100,364

35,562

Virginia Literacy Passport Test: Spring 1996 6 through 12

Washington California Test of Basic Skills: October 1996

CPAS: October 1996

4 through 8

II * West Virginia Stanford Achievement Tests: April 1997 3 through 11

Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Tests

Knowledge and Concept Tests

Knowledge and Concept Tests

Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test

4

8

103

5,968

4,793

2,460

Palau June 1997 8 * Other data provided (e.g., percentage of all test takers receiving special education)

** No data available or provided

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 32
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

It has been suggested that a combination of factors work against the full participation of students with disabilities in large scale assessment programs, especially in

states where accountability systems have significant consequences for students,

schools, or school systems. Most directors indicated that policies overseeing

participation within their states are adequate for local decision making. Table 4

shows that state directors generally perceived major discouraging factors to be

(a) the altruistic tendencies of some teachers and parents who wish to protect

students from stressful testing situations, and (b) the consequences, or "high

stakes," attached to school or district assessment results.

Table 4. Factors Inhibiting Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments

Factors:

Degree to Which Factor Discourages Participation of Students with Disabilities

To Little or No To a High

Degree Degree Mean

I 2 3 4 5 Rating

Teachers, parents or others wish to

"protect" students from stressful

testing situations

I state 4 states 18 states 21 states 9 states 3.62

High stakes (i.e., sanctions or

rewards) are attached to school or

district performance

9 states 2 states 9 states 13 states 19 states 3.60

Implementation of participation

guidelines varies widely at the

school or district level

3 states 3 states 14 states 23 states 6 states 3.53

Monitoring of how well these

policies or guidelines are being

followed is inadequate

5 states 6 states 13 states 20 states 8 states 3.38

Teachers, parents, or others

perceive large scale testing as

irrelevant to the educational

success of students with disabilities

8 states 9 states 17 states 12 states 5 states 2.94

Policies or guidelines overseeing

participation of students with

disabilities in assessment are absent

or vaguely written

15 states 10 states 11 states II states 4 states 2.59

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

33
State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments

State Activities in Developing

Alternate Assessments

FOR THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO ARE UNABLE TO

participate in regular state and district assessments, provisions within the

1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

stipulate the need for the development of alternate assessments. By the

year 2000, performance of students on the alternate assessment is to be

aggregated and reported publicly. Figure 13 reveals that most states have no

activity underway. Only two states have implemented or field-tested alternate

assessments, and the remaining states are in various stages of discussion or formal

planning. Table 5 shows the specific activities of the 20 states that indicated an

alternate assessment was either being discussed, developed, or implemented.

Figure 13. Number of States at Various Stages of Implementing Alternate Assessments

40

35

30

sol 25

ro 20

Z 15

I0

Implemented or Developing Discussing/Planning No Activities

Piloting Alternate Alternate to Discuss Reported

Assessment Standards or Assessment

Assessment Approaches

Description of Activities

BEST COPY AVAILABLE" 3 4
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 5. States' Progress in Implementing Alternate Assessments

State Alternate Assessment Programs

Colorado

A task force is just beginning to meet to discuss alternate assessment possibilities. Data

on non-participation in the general assessment will help inform decisions on who will take

alternate assessments.

Delaware A work group has started to develop a plan for an alternate assessment. The plan is due

February, 1998 with development to begin by Spring.

Florida

We are investigating an assessment "plan" that may include use of numerous alternative

assessments. We will not develop only one alternative assessment for students with

disabilities who are exempted from other statewide assessment.

Kansas A task force is being established to develop the alternate assessment.

Kentucky Kentucky has fully implemented an Alternate Portfolio System. Since 1992-93 school year,

ALL students with severe disabilities have participated in the statewide assessment and

accountability system by completing an alternative portfolio during 4th, 8th,

and 12th grade years. The portfolio entries include students' schedule, examples of

communication systems, school and community job resumes (for 12th grade level),

evidence of job experience (8th), and other entries selected and developed by the

students.

Maine We expect to develop alternative assessment forms as Learning Results are implemented.

Maryland Our state-wide alternate assessment, the Independence Mastery Assessment Program

(IMAP) consists of three main components: (I) on-demand authentic performance

tasks, (2) compilation of on-going pieces of work collected in student portfolios, and

(3) a parent survey of how they see their child's performance. Currently being piloted in

more than half the school districts in the state.

Massachusetts In pilot districts; methods in development stage.

Michigan We have identified exit performance expectations for moderate and severely impaired

populations that need to be incorporated into existing curricula by teachers. We also

have exit performance outcomes for high functioning students, which may be

implemented depending on the feedback from the above set of expectations.

Missouri We plan to begin discussions during the summer of 1997.

Nevada A task force on alternate assessments has been formed and discussions have begun.

New Jersey The nature [of the assessment] has not yet been determined. We are currently

researching options.

New York Currently under development.

North Carolina Our state is just in the discussion stage.

Oregon Since the reauthorization of IDEA, our state has begun discussion.

Rhode Island Our state has begun initial planning with assistance from the Northeast Regional

Resource Center.

Utah Discussions have started.

Vermont This is a priority for the next year. We are looking at Kentucky's model; alternatives will

be linked to standards.

West Virginia An alternate assessment is being developed. MSRRC is facilitating this process. Pilot

projects will be funded in Spring 1998.

District of

Columbia

We do not currently have an alternate method or instrument. We plan over the next 12

months to survey potential alternatives and perhaps pilot one or more.

EST COPTAVAILABLI 3 5
Using Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities

Using Assessment Results for

Students with Disabilities

EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ONLY BEGINS WITH

their participation in assessments. How assessment information is analyzed,

reported, and used is just as important to ensuring accountability as is initial

participation.

State directors in 31 states indicated that the performance scores of students with

disabilities were disaggregated for one or more of their state assessments. Figure

14 illustrates that 29 of these states indicated that a reason for disaggregating data

was to conduct separate analyses of the results. Eight states indicated that the

scores of such students were being disaggregated to eliminate their scores from

further analysis and reporting. Other provided reasons to disaggregate included

conducting comparative studies between special and general education students,

and removing scores that were gathered through the use of accommodations

believed to invalidate test results.

Figure 14. State Directors' Reasons for Disaggregated Performance Data

30

25

20

lAO

y 15

E

10

5

0

To Conduct Separate Analysis

and/or Reporting on Performance

of Students with Disabilities

To Remove Performance of

Students with Disabilities from

Further Analysis or Reporting

Other

Reasons for Disaggregation of Performance Data

larQT rntw fiVJAD AR! 1;

36
20

15

N

O

.0 10

E

z

5

0

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 15 shows that in the 22 states where scores were not disaggregated, state

directors indicated that the primary reasons included (1) lack of time, (2) lack of

resources, and (3) inability to identify students with disabilities in the data bases.

Fewer states reported not having an immediate need for the information, or

indicated that they had concerns about the possible misinterpretation or misuse of

these performance data. The "Other" response shown in the chart refers to a state

that expressed concern that such disaggregation could be viewed as a discriminatory practice.

Figure 15. State Directors' Reasons for Not Disaggregating Performance Data

Cannot Identify

Students with

Disabilities in

Data Bases

Lack of Available Lack of Available Do Not Have a Concerns About

Resources (e.g., Time Current Need for Possible

funding, staff) Information Misinterpretation

Barriers to Dissagregation of Performance Data

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3(

Other
Using Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities

In the 26 states that include scores for students with disabilities in any type of

report, the primary avenue of reporting is internal review documents for both

state and local educational administrators. Twelve states include the disaggregated

performance of students with disabilities in their regularly released reports on

educational outcomes. One state reported producing a separate, publicly released

report that exclusively featured the assessment performance of students with

disabilities. Other reporting strategies included individual reports sent to the

schools for school and family use.

Figure 16. How Disaggregated Scores of Performance Data are Reported

Internal Reports for Review by SEA

Officials

Internal Reports for Review by LEA

Officials

c Publicly Released Reports that Include

-41 General Education Results

1/1 Publicly Released Reports that Only

Include Special Education Results

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of States

EST COPY AVAILABLE' 38
Only 13 state directors

suggested that statewide

assessment data on

students with disabilities

were used systematically

for the purpose of

improving special education programming. A

closer examination of

responses shows that the

uses are diverse (from

instructional improvement to accreditation)

and many are still in the

planning stages. Table 6

shows the actual and

planned uses of statewide

assessment data on

students with disabilities.

30 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 6.Actual and Planned Uses of Statewide Assessment Data on Students with

Disabilities

States Plans to Use Data

Colorado Policies and procedures are being developed to include student performance

improvement plans in the Enterprise Contract that schools must submit to the State

Board of Education for accreditation purposes.

Kentucky Schools develop consolidated plans for funding. Assessment data are analyzed to

assist in setting priorities for professional development, curriculum alignment,

instructional focus, allocation of resources, etc. At the state level, results are used

to design and focus professional development, target technical assistance needs, and

collaborate on curricular and instructional initiatives with general education.

Maryland

As part of the included population in the assessment, special education is

represented on the "School Improvement Team" (SIT) at the local building level.

The SIT has responsibility for annually improving the achievement of its school's

students.

Michigan

Outcomes Assessment data are used to evaluate the progress of students with

disabilities. The assessment strategies have shifted from several assessment formats

(different for each disability) to a common assessment format across the four levels

of independence. Using categorical assessments, a framework is provided for

documenting student performance over time, in different contexts, and in

opportunities identified by teachers.

Missouri

There is a standard in district accreditation process that requires disaggregation of

data. The standard also requires districts to use the disaggregated data for

instructional improvement

Nevada

Using a Program Improvement Model being developed as the framework for special

education monitoring, districts will use student assessment data and other indicators

to design and implement Program Improvement Plans.

New Hampshire Data are used in the Special Education Monitoring and Improvement Process

implemented at the local district level.

New Jersey

(In development) Assessments will be aligned with standards. Frameworks are

being created to assist LEAs with curriculum development, to align curriculum with

standards for success in assessments.

New York Results of students with disabilities on statewide assessments are reported, along

with results for nondisabled students in a School Report Card, which is disseminated

annually to all parents, boards of education, and district staff. A comprehensive

quality assurance process focuses on student results. Eleven Key Performance

Indicators are used to identify districts that will receive intensive assistance to

improve results.

Ohio District competency based assessment intervention-based assessment

South Carolina

For students participating in BSAP-based curriculum, results are used for

instructional improvement, promotion/retention, and school incentive rewards.

Passing the exit examination is one of the criteria for receiving a high school diploma.

Washington We are in the process of developing.

West Virginia

Data from statewide assessment results, including students with disabilities who took

the test under standard conditions, are used at the classroom and building level for

instructional planning and curriculum improvement

BEST COPY AVAILME

3 9
Individualized Educational Programs and Assessments

Individualized Educational

Programs and Assessments

CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITHIN THE REAUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Education Act (IDEA) call for increased access by special education students to

the curriculum of general education. These requirements will likely increase the

need for greater collaboration between special educators and their general education counterparts, and lead to fundamental changes in how Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) are written, implemented, and evaluated. State directors

in only six states indicated that IEP teams are required to document the linkage

between an individual student's goals and objectives to the state's content or

curriculum standards. While several states are considering requiring this, most

states had no plans to require these linkages.

In contrast, many states are requiring documentation of decisions about a

student's participation in testing and the use of accommodations in instruction

and assessment. Most state directors indicated that documentation of instructional accommodations is a current IEP requirement; nearly as many indicated

that their states require documentation of which assessment a student will take

and which accommodations are provided during the assessment. Table 7 provides

information on the responses of state directors to questions about written documentation required on the IEP.

Table 7. IEP Alignment with Standards

Number of States where:

According to your state's policies, is written documentation

required on the IEP concerning:

No plans exist to

require this

Such a policy is

currently being

considered

IEP teams are

currently

required to

document this

How a student's individual goals and objectives are aligned with

state's content or curriculum standards 29 20 6

Decisions about which assessment(s) a student will be administered 9 16 31 Decisions about which accommodations should be provided to a

student during instruction 7 7 41

Decisions about which accommodations should be provided to a

student during statewide assessments 10 16 30

Decisions about the performance standards to which a student will

be held 20 16 17

REST COPY AVAILABLE 4 0
ca NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Measuring Non-Academic

Outcomes for Students with

Disabilities

THE FIELD OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCAtional programming and transitional planning, has always embraced educational

outcomes that go beyond the "3 Rs." One model that reflects this broader view of

education is one advanced by NCEO a comprehensive model that includes

both academic and non-academic domains. The model, constructed through the

deliberations of several nationally-representative stakeholder groups, identifies

anticipated outcomes for all learners, including those with disabilities. Despite its

relevance, state directors indicated that data reflecting any of the non-academic

domains are not routinely collected or published by state special education divisions or units. This was true, even though there was no limitation on the interpretation of whether data fit within a domain. With the exception of satisfaction

measures, those relatively few states that do collect non-academic data seldom

publish the information. See Table 8 for data available on non-academic outcomes

for students with disabilities.

41
Measuring Non Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

Table 8. Data Available on Non-Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

NCEO Educational Outcome Domains No Data

Available

Data Available,

But Not

Published

Data Available,

And Published

Accommodations and Adaptations: the extent to

which students use adaptive technology or

compensatory strategies to achieve outcomes

46 I0 0

Presence and Participation: the extent to which

students with disabilities are present and actively

participate in school

33 14 6

Physical Health: the extent to which students

engage in healthy behaviors related to physical wellbeing

46 6 3

Responsibility and Independence: the extent to

which student behaviors reflect the ability to act

independently and assume personal responsibility

49 6 I Contribution and Citizenship: the extent to which

students participate as citizens in society 49 6 I Personal and Social Adjustment: the extent to

which students demonstrate socially acceptable and

healthy behaviors and attitudes

48 6 2

Satisfaction: the extent to which students or their

parents hold a favorable attitude toward education 45 5 5

42
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Current Issues and Technical

Assistance Needs

STATE DIRECTORS IDENTIFIED THE ISSUES THEY ARE CURRENTLY FACING AND THEIR

primary technical assistance needs. These were compared to issues and technical

assistance needs identified in the NCEO 1995 national survey. Figure 17 shows

that for 11 of the 12 issues identified, the number of states identifying it as

important increased, sometimes dramatically. The number of states indicating a

lack of co-operation between special and general education leaped from 5 to 15

states, a 200% increase. Resistance from parents or communities also showed an

86% increase, rising from 7 to 13 states. The most frequently selected issues

remained relatively constant from 1995 to 1997, with a large number of states

obviously faced with the challenges of making standards-based reform relevant for

students with disabilities.

Figure 17. Current Issues State Directors are Facing

Adequacy of Assessments for

Students with Disabilities

Policies or Practices Regarding Test

Accommodations

Policies or Practices Regarding

Participation

Appropriateness of Standards for

Students with Disabilities

Availability of Data on Who is

Excluded From Assessment

Availability of Data on Who

Receives Accommodations

Lack of Resources

Concerns or Resistance by Local

School Personnel

Lack of Technical Expertise

Lack of Cooperation Between

General and Special Education

Concerns or Resistance by Parents

and Community

Concerns or Resistance by State

Agency Personnel

Other 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of States

1995

1997

.11
Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs

Technical assistance needs reflect the issues states are facing. Not surprisingly, the

increase in the number of states facing critical issues in standards-based reform

activities is matched by an increase in the overall number of states seeking technical assistance in this area. Figure 18 illustrates how each of the identified technical

assistance strategies was selected by a larger number of states in 1997 survey than

in 1995. The most desired technical assistance is information on what other state

educational agencies have done to successfully meet the increasing challenges.

Written materials that can assist state teams in their review of assessment policies

and practices also has remained a highly desired option for survey respondents.

Figure I 8.Technical Assistance Needs for State Directors

Best Practices Used by Other

States

Materials to Inform Self-Review of

Assessment Practices

Materials to Build Awareness of

Value of Outcome Data

Review of State-Developed

Materials by NCEO

Small Group Clinics by NCEO on

To Specific Topics e

.e Conference Calls with NCEO

Conference Calls with Other States

Individual Consultations with

NCEO

Information via SpecialNet

Other

I I I

01995

1997

0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of States

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

44
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix:

State Directors' Level of

Involvement in Reform

Activities

TABLES 9 THROUGH 17 SHOW STATE DIRECTORS' LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT IN NCEO's

nine identified areas of reform activities.

See Figures 2 through 10 (pages 6-14) for illustrations of the degree of emphasis

on the identified areas of reform activities. Figure 11 (page 15) illustrates the level

of involvement state directors have in the "high emphasis" states.

Table 9. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Establishing or Revising Educational Outcomes, Standards, or

Curricular Frameworks

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year:

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number ofStates

I: Not involved I state I state 3 states 5 states

2 2 states 3 states 5 states

3 3 states 5 states 11 states 19 states

4 I state 4 states 8 states 13 states

5: Closely involved 12 states 12 states

Total Number of States I state 4 states 12 states 37 states 54 states

45
Appendix: State Directors' Level of Involvement in Reform Activities

Table 10. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Aligning Assessments to Content or Curricular Standards

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year:

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 3 states I state 5 states 9 states

2 I state 2 states 3 states 6 states

3 3 states 2 states 10 states 15 states

4 2 states 7 states 9 states

5: Closely involved I state 14 states 15 states

Total Number of States 3 states I state 4 states 7 states 39 states 54 states

Table I I. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Developing or Revising Participation and Exemption Policies

for Statewide Assessments

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 4 states I state I state 6 states

2 2 states 2 states

3 I state 3 states I state I state 6 states

4 6 states 3 states 2 states 11 states

5: Closely involved I state I state 5 states 22 states 29 states

Total Number of States 4 states 2 states 11 states 10 states 27 states 54 states

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 46
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 12. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Developing or RevisingTesting Accommodation Policies

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year:

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 5 states I state 2 states 8 states

2 I state I state 2 states

3 6 states I state 7 states

4 6 states 2 states I state 9 states

5: Closely involved I state 6 states 21 states 28 states

Total Number of States 6 states I state 14 states 10 states 23 states 54 states

Table 13. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Determining Statewide Reporting Procedures

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year:

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 6 states I state 3 states I state II states

2 I state 2 states 3 states 6 states

3 4 states 2 states 3 states 9 states

4 4 states 7 states 11 states

5: Closely involved 3 states 12 states 15 states

Total Number of States 6 states I state 7 states 15 states 23 states 52 states

47
Appendix: State Directors' Level of Involvement in Reform Activities

Table 14. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Establishing Rewards or Sanctions for Schools and Districts

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year

I: No emphasis 2 3 4 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 15 states 4 states 4 states I state 24 states

2 3 states 4 states 2 states 9 states

3 5 states I state 2 states 8 states

4 I state 3 states 4 states

5: Closely involved I state I state 4 states 6 states

Total Number of States 16 states 7 states 15 states 5 states 8 states 51 states

Table 15. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Staff Development Training to Promote Implementation of

New Standards and Assessments

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 2 states 4 states 3 states 9 states

2 2 states 3 states I state 6 states

3 4 states 3 states 5 states 12 states

4 7 states 6 states 13 states

5: Closely involved 2 states 10 states 12 states

Total Number of States 2 states 2 states 8 states 15 states 25 states 52 states

EST COPY AVAILABLE 48
40 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table I 6.State Directors' Level of Involvement in Reforming Preservice Educational Programs in Teacher

Preparation Institutions

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year

1: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 3 states 4 states 7 states

2 I state 5 states 3 states 2 states I state 12 states

3 2 states 12 states 3 states 3 states 20 states

4 2 states 5 states 7 states

5: Closely involved I state I state 3 states 2 states 7 states

Total Number of States 4 states 12 states 18 states 13 states 6 states 53 states

Table 17. State Directors' Level of Involvement in Engaging Parents and Communities in Reform Efforts

Through Public Outreach Activities

Level of involvement by

your special education

division or unit:

Emphasis placed on this activity by state education agency this year

I: No emphasis 2: Little

emphasis

3: Some

emphasis

4: Moderate/

high emphasis 5: High emphasis Total Number of

States

I: Not involved 3 states 2 states 2 states 7 states

2 2 states I state I state 3 states 7 states

3 7 states 8 states 4 states 19 states

4 I state 2 states 5 states I state 9 states

5: Closely involved 3 states 8 states I I states

Total Number of States 3 states 5 states 12 states 17 states 16 states 53 states

49
The College of Education

& Human Development

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

50
a

4

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

I icI

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may

be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release

form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").